Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 9, Kim 3, A-g 3, Avalos 2, John Updike 2, Rick 2, America 2, Piers 2, The City 2, San Francisco 2, Chu 1, Katy Ladel 1, Underdeliver 1, Jennifer 1, Agreing 1, Denis 1, Mr. Updike 1, Tom King 1, San Franciscans 1, Oakland 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 14, 2012
    8:30 - 9:00pm PST  

8:30pm
that would be there. of course now we have thousands of residents that didn't, per se, predict that another arena might come into play that would impact the neighborhood. so while this neighborhood is located in a transit hub where bart and caltran are a stone's throw away in the terminal, making it an ideal side of an arena for this side we have to be careful and considerate of those that live here currently. i do want to congratulate the warriors for being the first private development to agree to our local harboring laws that typically only adhere to public projects. it is an incredible opportunity. we want jobs for our locals and see this as being an enhance to that. i don't think anybody denis that. i don't think that has to be site specific. that is a concern of the neighbors. a project this ambitious
8:31pm
deserves a deliberate project so i appreciate we delay this over the holidays to make sure residents have a time to think and be engaged. i think this is being prioritized by the city but i would like to have that balance as much as we can. given the warrior's time line with lease expiration in oakland but also understanding a lot of hesitation and concerns i think our residents are asking. i do really want to commend the residents of our neighborhood for being incredibly incredible and respectable and reasonable. i think it's been outstanding. the level to which our residents have beening a gaouing to participate in the discussion versus outright saying we are against the project, we will not participate and oppose at all costs. i think that speaks to the level of respect and dedication people have both to their neighborhood but also to the city as a whole. so i think there are a lot of great things moving forward. i think the design is beautiful. there is a great architect
8:32pm
in place. i think warriors have been great in initiating this outreach process with the neighborhood. you know, rick, i think you have been a great spokesperson for the warriors and i appreciate your ability to listen and engage in that feedback. we haven't always seen that with developers that come i want the city. of course i have concerns. it is a very expensive site. another wouldn't cost $120 million but i understand the city wants to rehabilitate pier 30, 32 at some point. some project will go in. that is the expectation as well. i think we must address the traffic concerns. the cost to provide are beyond the $2 that writers pay when they ride to the sites. i think we have to ensure we have the funds to address the traffic. i have concerns about the number of public parking spots being proposed, given the narrowness of that area.
8:33pm
there is one way to get onto pier 30, 32. i want to ensure we address that. i want to address the cost of paying for the additional trash. crowd control, police and security. i think that is something we have really learned now since the giants stadium is really the cost it has on the city. i want to ensure we are able to find a dedicated revenue to address the costs so it is not on residents and neighbors to pay for that. also i want to express what many have brought up. that is we truly respect the citizen's advisory committee. these amendment also help that. i want to ensure they are able to provide adequate and thoughtful responses at every step of the way, as we had promised to -- as we had promised and put together a deal that doesn't over commit and underdeliver as we have sometimes seen with major
8:34pm
argued raoen nas. we have put forward something that we can commit to. when we made that promise to the neighborhood, it happens the way we stated it would. those are some of the thoughts as we move forward. i do really want to thank everyone for engaging in a very respectful and engaged process. >> thank you, supervisor kim. just to be clear in terms of the amendments, they are not substantive. i see our attorney agreing. supervisor avalos? >> firstly second the amendments. i concur with many of the comments that supervisor kim has expressed. i have also been sitting in this committee over different projects proposed at pier 30 and 32. the experience i have had today is vastly different from the experience we had prior. talk about america's cup
8:35pm
and looking at how piers 30 and 32 could get developed. i think that is significant. i think the approach warriors have had moving forward has been much more of an effort to really learn how to do this project. we are still in the learning process. i think that the warriors have expressed that even know that they are in the learning process and listening to stake holders. i think the impact from citizen's advisory committee is important and actually i'm glad we have amendments that we'll be putting forward that will assure they have a voice in future agreements that come before the board of supervisors prior to the board will get their recommendations. that makes a lot of sense. and also is the way that this project has moved forward so far. i want to commend the warriors on that. i see, you know, this
8:36pm
resolution before us today on fiscal feasibility as a small step. certainly the amount of people in the room. it is a big step for the project moving forward but a small step in terms of all the questions and permitting processes we have to go through. so i actually felt very comfortable moving forward today. i also want to acknowledge the warriors and the work of the office of economic workforce development and community stake holders, labor organizations around getting aning a gaoument around local hiring, especially being a privately funded project it is a significant standard we are setting for future projects moving forward. clearly the city is embracing the need to look how we manage to bring local san franciscans into jobs we build in the city. i'm very excited this project is part of that
8:37pm
principle and effort. i will be supporting this project moving forward or this resolution today. i is not a guarantee of approving future things but i think we have something worth moving forward and getting the full board support tuesday. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. i also want to thank jennifer, monique, rick and of course to our cac and in particular katy ladel for expressing some of your thoughts to us. of course as we are doing thanks i think the america's cup negotiations did help inform us. every step, even if the it appeared to be a setback has led us to a place where we can be more comfortable with our new project. i do want to state that. i do think that this is a project that has sitting potential. we saw what it would mean to us. brings to us the nba. i think many of us are very
8:38pm
excited about that. it brings to us a convention but also entertainment venue that san francisco just does not have at this moment. i think that would be something that is incredibly wonderful for the city and brings a lot of construction and post construction jobs i think is very valuable to people who live and work here. so that being said i know we will have a lot of work on the due diligence component in terms of actually fiscal feasibility component. i think in terms of what is required under the admin code we have met that and looked at benefits and shown we have one-time financial benefits close to 54 million. we have on going benefits between 9 to 19 million for this project. there are also a ton of theser indirect financial benefits that may come from this, in addition the fact that 120 million or more. we i guess estimate 1 billion will go into construction costs from the
8:39pm
private sector with the city only on the hook to reimburse up to 120 million for the work that is ours, really the substructure and rehabilitation of piers 30, 32. i think this in very stark contrast to some of the other proposals does limit the scope of the city's exposure and shows there is potentially a large economic gain to it. with that being said i know we will have a lot of work with the neighbors and residents who live there. we often talk about impacts to residents and neighbors, what that would mean. i think this is unique. a place where there is incredible density. people who live, work and play and we will have to be conscientious and sensitive to the competing needs in the area. in terms of what i would like to see coming forward, i know when the term sheet does come forward i want to make sure we have very tight controls and how we are spending and approving 120 million, as well as
8:40pm
resolving conflicts that arise. that will be key to limiting the level of reimbursement the city has for this project. that is something i'm interested to see. i think very much another issue that i do care a lot about is how we will manage transportation and other investments. in my district, far removed from this area, you wonder how we are impacted. any time we have a giants game and the muni trains are needed we don't see the muni lines go out to sunset to deliver passengers to their homes. those are things that have a direct impact. though it seems far away to all of our residents. so i do want to understand how transportation benefits and how the services will be provided. i have a little departure about parking. i think we need to have enough parking on site. i think that is vitally important. i'm not of the thought
8:41pm
reduce parking and people will not come. i think have the parking and they will circle the neighborhoods. needs to have further conversation. operations around transportation and limiting or being able to resolve cop nrikts with 120 million reimbursement is some of the key areasly be looking for. with that i would be happy by to co-sponsor the legislation and support having this item go out to the full board of supervisors. supervisor kim. >> thank you, chair chiu. i want to make two other comments. one, i want to express the sentiment of residents. i hope in the eir that we truly consider other sites and not just give that exploration lip service. the second thing is make this note actually on treasure island and bay view hunter's point is there is a stark difference in between those two in the sense that those developers are not guaranteed
8:42pm
reimbursement for the costs they have put forward. hence there is a slightly higher rate of interest versus this, where there is a guarantee the city will pay back warriors and ask us to clarify that difference. i would like to make a motion to amend. >> we have a motion to amend the legislation. supervisor kim has read those items or the language into the record. what we are referring to, for members of the public, is on page 11 right after line 16. we would insert the language the two new further resolved clauses supervisor kim read in, in addition to that the paragraph following is amended slightly to include a few language adjustments to talk about potential traffic congestion, noise impact and schedule. those are the amounts. not substantive in nature. we have a motion. perhaps we can take a
8:43pm
motion to amend the document read into the record and send item forward with recommendation as recommended. we have that. can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. thank you very much. all right. what i would like to do, colleagues, is i would like to go through items 8 and 9. take a quick 15-minute break at 2:00, roughly, then move forward to the rest of the agenda items. madam clerk, call item 8, please. >> item 8, resolution authorizing the extension of master lease of real property at 2176 through 2178 mission street for the department of public health for ten years commencing on december 5th, 2012. >> we have john updike on item 8.
8:44pm
>> good afternoon, chair chu and members of the committee. john updike, director of real estate. this item involves the -- >> just one second. >> sure. >> okay. >> this item involves the star hotel. a 54-room sro located on mission street to near 18th. it provides direct access to housing program as administered by the department of public health. specifically delivered by
8:45pm
the tide center under contract through their dish program, or delivering innovations in support of housing. what that is is the acceptance of first ten-year option n. 2002 we began a ten-year initial term and two additional ten-year options so now it is time for the first ten-year option that would take the lease through december 4th, 2022. there is an increase in the base rental of 3%. there is also an increase allowable during this term. this second ten-year term. based on consumer price index of no less than 3%, no greater than six 6. fairly typical range for items of this nature. in addition to the base rent the city pays for
8:46pm
management services delivered through tide and dps brings support of services. i'm joined by staff in case you have specific questions. budget analyst report goes over the increase of rental and return but i want to know table 3 did a nice job of showing the net expense. the annual amount per tenant, which i think is probably the most important number here, is 16,967 for delivery of this support of the housing environment. so happy to answer any questions you might have about this item. >> thank you very much. why don't we go to the budget analyst report on item 8. >> good afternoon, chair chu and members of the committee. as mr. updike said, this is
8:47pm
the option to extend first of two ten-year options of master lease of star hotel, serving 54 clients. under the lease the first year rent would increase by 3%. annual adjustment based on cpi that would range from 3% to no more than 6%. fiscal year 2012 and 2013 costs are 388,256. this is included in the dph budget. we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. why don't we open this for public comment. are there members of the public what wish to speak on item number 8? >> thank you, supervisors, tom king. again this goes back to opening comment. when you are online and looking at the agenda, it would be great to have a link from the items to -- what i just heard, both preventers haddockments
8:48pm
that would have been helpful to review prior to coming here because otherwise members of the public were kind of in the dark. it doesn't specify what the lease is, the amount of money. it doesn't specify what previous was. just off the top of my head i think securing a lengthy lease like that in two buildings, i don't think we should have paid that 3% increase.
8:49pm
8:50pm
8:51pm
8:52pm
>> hello, we are back from a quick recess. the budget and finance committee. we completed items 1-9. and so we will be resuming the rest of the agenda. i believe that we have the moscini items left. and to my understanding that they are okay with us calling item 12 out of the order, is that correct?
8:53pm
okay. mr. clerk, call item 12 please. >> item 12. >> thank you, this item is brought to us by supervisor kim. do you have opening comments to make? >> i do, because we have many members of the public that have been waiting for a long time. i want to get to the presentation. this is a discussion i brought up back in the budget cycle in june of this year. how we were to absolutely fund our essential services, whether our public schools. and given the cuts from the state and federal level. i know that many of our services and departments have received cuts. but it's important for the families and youth to give them support to succeed. and this supplemental is from
8:54pm
discussions over the months. to allow how the funds are best >> hello, we are back from a quick recess. the budget and finance committee. we completed items 1-9. and so we will be resuming the rest of the agenda. i believe that we have the moscini items left. and to my understanding that they are okay with us calling item 12 out of the order, is that correct? okay. mr. clerk, call item 12 please. >> item 12. >> thank you, this item is brought to us by supervisor kim. do you have opening comments to
8:55pm
make? >> i do, because we have many members of the public that have been waiting for a long time. i want to get to the presentation. this is a discussion i brought up back in the budget cycle in june of this year. how we were to absolutely fund our essential services, whether our public schools. and given the cuts from the state and federal level. i know that many of our services and departments have received cuts. but it's important for the families and youth to give them support to succeed. and this supplemental is from discussions over the months. to allow how the funds are best utilized to ensure success. and our superintendent, richard, his first year as our superintendent. i am excited to see you in
8:56pm
leadership at sfsub. >> thank you, for the opportunity to be here, this is a truly an honor. as i go around the community and talk about the partnership we have with the city of san francisco. it is truly an honor to be here and share some information with you. we would like to do this afternoon is share information around a-g, and a critically need for the school district. which is graduating our school students. and graduating students that are prepared for post-secondary education. as we know that education is part of the fabric of this community. as an overview of what we will present this afternoon. i would like to give you a contents of a-g requirements and the status of the first graduating class that will have to meet the a-g requirements.
8:57pm
i have colleagues here who will talk about the budget. that will give you an update on our budget status and how the budget cuts have affected our a-g progress. and our assistance high school principal will talk about concrete immediate actions associated with this appropriation. with that by way of context the board of education approved a policy in 2009 to raise the graduation requirements so all students graduating from the school system would meet uclg requirements. that was gone so that once they gra grade -- graduate and receive university admission. the policy was that equity and goals should be for all
8:58pm
students. and the class of 2014 is the first class to graduate with these new high school requirements. this year's high school juniors. but what is sad at the same time. in 2009 to the present when the policy was passed. the district has had over $77 million in cuts to funding. that devastated the district's ability to provide the safety net that every student is on track for a-g. and we have been impacted through this action plan. i receive the question if the passage of prop 30 fix it. there are no new funds with prop 30. what it does is stabilize the base. and the base is an old base. it's not restoring anything. it's starting the hemorrhaging, if you will. >> before you go forward.
8:59pm
i think what is not clear to me. so i understand that the a-g graduation policy was put in place by the school board previously. i think that many members of the board supported that concept as well. when you say that the funding cuts have hampered the progress of a-g. i am not sure what that means. what would a-g or creating that requirement mean? would the school district have to increase instruction or what is not moved forward? >> thank you for that question, supervisor chu. i mean there is a safety net to increase the rigors for graduation. there is a higher bar to get a diploma. and associated with that is a series of safety nets to get this rigorous